truefusion

What you can do is install something like Fluxbuntu or DSL. The last time i tried DSL, it only took up 50mbs of RAM for the whole system (i.e. as big as the system itself was). These two are both binary-based distros, so it'll be easier on the computer. I would say that is assuming you won't be installing any GUIs. And if i'm not mistaken, Arch Linux is a source-based distribution, so with the kind of specs we've been presented, i would not recommend that distribution, since you'd be doing a lot of compiling.

Let me know of any changes you want to it or if you're interested in the GIMP file, or if you can't see the attachment.

If they're trying to impress us by these releases, i feel they'll have to try harder than what they're doing now. I have installed Windows 7 in VirtualBox: installation alone took up 15.4 gigabytes. I see this as a major regression on Windows' side. Windows XP's system requirements says only 1.5 gigabytes is needed. And going through things in RC 1 (which i doubt much if anything will change, at least visually, by the time of its "stable" release) shows me that there's nothing special about the system. The only thing i find slightly interesting is how you can drag the window to the edge of the screen and, depending on which edge you touch, the window will either maximize the window (top edge), maximize with half the desktop width to the left (left edge), or the same as the left edge but to the right (right edge). I'm a little (though almost fully) convinced that the only reason anyone would purchase this beast is because of Mircosoft's monopoly.

I do not think we should condemn them too. I do believe they have a purpose, even if they would prefer the "purpose" they give themselves over any objective purpose. Assuming the Abrahamic God, God is known to answer in about three ways (probably more): (1) instantly, (2) when He feels the conditions are right, or (3) never. The question may come up, "If He never answers, then how can that be considered an answer?" Not answering can itself be an answer. The hard part is telling the difference between 2 and 3—that is, number 2 can take several years. I say these things from experience. This is assuming that the believer actually believes that God will respond. Merely wanting Him to respond isn't necessarily enough. By believing that He'll respond you'll be more aware of your surroundings, and, more importantly, allowing for a closer connection with you and God. Therefore when you look back on everything you may then see that you were on a path this whole time. Again, this is from my experience. In this case, unfortunately, i do not believe it is possible for this person to become aware of her purpose. This is not to say that she may not be placed on a path anyway, but due to disbelief, chances are, they'll end up digging a hole for themselves. In this case, even though there may be times when they are not fully satisfied with the purpose they gave themselves (assuming they actually were capable of achieving their personal goal—since i hear many having trouble doing so), it cannot be helped. If dissatisfaction arises, you may find the person stuffing their face in sensual or work related things in order to avoid the world. Whether they consciously know that they are trying to avoid the world is beyond me, but in doing so they'll just be placing unnecessary burdens upon themselves. This reminds me of the book Ecclesiastes. In the book, the author mentions a lot of things he has observed and experienced in order to find the point to life. No matter what the author did, he could not find complete satisfaction in life, and starting calling everything meaningless, even life. But in the end, he managed to conclude that there is something that can be done though life may be dissatisfying at times. This book is extremely similar to your current situation, only the author assumes more experience. The text suggests that Solomon (the wisest person in Jewish history) could be the author, but there is no absolute way to tell. Nevertheless, i recommend you read it. Knowing Solomon and some of the things he has observed during his time, it may have been about disbelief and thinking that one would not need God. However, i do not see this as an all encompassing answer, and from experience it can fit into situations that doesn't even include God. I'd try to go at it, but i am having trouble following it, so i would need it to be said differently. Yes, interesting. But if you were to ask who created God in that case you would run into the infinite regression problem, so it becomes impossible for God to have been created. The question, "Where does God come from?" already assumes God's existence—that is, it is not (or need not be) limited to His existence, but could just be where He is positioned. Time is hard to understand. And yet, so is a world that is timeless. Does the fact that when we try to imagine a timeless world and find difficulty doing so imply that time exists, that it isn't just a concept? And is it the reason why we would find difficulty is because this world runs mostly on such a thing? Whatever the case, we cannot understand other things like "begining" and "ending", "past," "future," "present" without time.

A question that popped into my head: Do you have any previous work to show the client to assure them that you are capable of doing the job? One part of obtaining a job is how you sell yourself. You wouldn't want your clients thinking of you as incompetent.

Whoops! I meant deformities. My mistake; thinking one thing, writing another... "Hinder the population" implies that it isn't avoidable—that it'll occur to the entire population. Humans weren't made perfect; to be perfect is to be equal to God. Look at your current avatar (at the time of this writing) to know why that would be undesirable. I did not say that He created or started it, i said that He allowed it—which is probably why it was later condemn. There is no Biblical explanation that i know of on why it was allowed. In any case, deformities due to incest is avoidable. I meant due to the randomness of evolution, deformities could have kicked in at a later time. Since the human species can still survive without incest, this can be passed on forever. And since in the theory of evolution things can't evolve to a previous state, the deformities due to incest will therefore last forever. I already know that Christmas came from a pagan concept (just like wedding rings), but that doesn't make Christianity false. Other evidence on why December 25th could not have been Jesus's birthday would come from how the shepherds acted during that time. For example in Luke 2:8, it says that there were shepherds living outside during the night. Back then, when it would get quite hot during the night, people would often sleep outside or on their rooftops, since it was much cooler there than inside their homes. If it was December it would have been too cold to sleep outside. You said certain animals could only live in certain areas. This implies that if you move them out of their environment, they would die, therefore implying that some animals that were supposed to make it passed the flood died on the boat. So in order for there to be as many animals as there are today, new ones would have had to evolve all over again from whatever microscopic organism that the flood would have potentially produced. But since this process takes a VERY long time, that could not have been the case, except perhaps to, yet again, more individual creations from God.

That's what i meant, yes. When you think of a desk or a chair, what purpose do you think it has? Isn't its purpose whatever its designer gave it? Can the chair or desk tell itself, "I know my purpose in life"? Of course these objects bear no conscious, so this is obviously metaphoric. But it also implies that if there is no creation or designer, then there is no purpose. That is, any purpose then would instead be made up. I see. Anyway, be careful concerning with what "feels right." There's a proverb concerning such a thing. So basically all targets have to be hit? No. Science works with the premise that everything has a(n) (natural) explanation. This premise does not do away with a God, but since science won't consider anything they themselves can't observe, and since God can't be "placed under the microscope," God won't be considered as an explanation. However, i do not mean to say that you can't be both a believer and a scientist. I see science as merely attempting to answer the question: "How did God do it?" To run off of the premise that things can be explained is to imply that everything has a cause, so one is, i would say, at least working, though indirectly, within the context of the existence of a god. Otherwise you'd run into an infinite regression or a paradox. For even if one says that the Big Bang is where everything started (therefore avoiding the infinite regression dilemma), you'd run into the paradoxical dilemma, that nothing can cause itself into existence—it must either have always existed or was caused into existence by an outside force. And since the former is refuted by the Big Bang theory, that leaves you with the latter.

This is an old statement that doesn't even stand up to critical thinking or Biblical study. Your main premise is that incest always existed. But you haven't even shown that, you only assume it true throughout your entire statement. In fact, your statement implies that God is stupid or something. Do you think He is incapable of preventing deformities until He so wishes it for it to kick in? In fact, if you read Genesis concerning the events after the flood you'll find statements that imply that this was indeed the case, that He didn't allow for deformities until after a certain period. Yet, even if we were to assume the theory of evolution, you yourself would have to admit it is possible for deformities to come into play at a later time. As mentioned, that need not be the case. You may want to re-look at your information. No known scholar today would agree that Jesus was born in December, even more so on the 25th. In fact, to say that Jesus was born in December 25th could be appeal to Christmas. There is evidence that shows that Jesus may have been born in late September, early October. They say this is concluded because, if i remember correctly, a certain crop is said to grow only during that time of the season. Therefore, it would follow that these other religions took from the Abrahamic religions. But even if we were to assume December 25th, to say that no such event occurred would be a false dilemma on your part. Just because it came from "religion" doesn't make it false. This is why it is a false dilemma if one were to claim it false, because the premise generally assumes that religions are false to begin with, yet they provide no evidence for their premise (which is obviously false). It's like saying to a Judge in a court room, "I'm sorry, Your Honor, but we cannot trust the overwhelming number of witnesses. The reason being is because there are too many of them! They can't be true!" Rather than trying to explain this, you can look at this topic, as it goes into great detail on the flood event. And by the way, bringing in evolution at this point in time, that is, at the time of the ending of the flood isn't plausible. We all know just how many years it takes just for one species to evolve into another, so a few thousand years isn't enough, especially since your statement implies that some of the animals on the ark that were supposed to be saved died due to their inability to live under those climates.

Though not entirely finished, i am releasing it anyway. This is something i did entirely in the GIMP. The only third-party thing about it is the rocky texture of the planet—third-party grunge brushes, since i couldn't find the right combination of filters. Other than that, everything else is all GIMP, mostly filters. Download XCF JPG format (1600x1200):

How long did it take for it to transform? And how was this concluded? Perhaps, but by mentioning Tamiflu you imply that there is something out there already that could "take care" of the virus. So a vaccine may be irrelevant. Then again, so may Tamiflu. Although i'm not one that is "certified," i'd still recommend not eating ham. Ham isn't really a healthy meat to begin with. So how are the pigs in all of this? Have any of them died because of their flu? If none have died due to their flu, then does that mean they have a better immune system then us or are we making this swine flu a big deal (again)? Which could be any vaccine for the swine flu. I would suspect vaccines to do more damage to the elderly more than anyone else, since one would expect the elderly to have a weaker immune system than the younger folk. The person would most likely crash by day two, but it would be interesting to see if someone can go that many days without sleep anyway. My statement was more general than simply "washing your hands," as i said "if you clean yourself too much," so not giving your immune system "practice" through every-day tasks can still come into play. After all, that's what vaccines attempt to do: they inject a "weak" or "harmless" version of the virus or bacteria in order to boost your immune system.

Since studies are involved, it should be safe to assume freelance or (very) temporary positions. Since you mention server-side scripting, that's more of a web developer position, like with Ruby on Rails, JSP, ASP, et cetera (which the client may ask for by the way). Since i don't think you know every possible language used in web development, that means the amount of clients you'd reach out to is lowered. Also, you mention the GIMP, so does that imply that you'll be working under Linux (mostly)? If so, then Flash is out of the question? If so, then that lowers again the number of clients you could attract. However, you could probably convince them that you can do just about the same things with SVG and JavaScript that one would see in Flash websites, so you'll need to be quite competent in JS and whatever else you plan on showing off. If you're lucky, the client would want something small or have you work with a well-known CMS instead (which you'll of course need some foreknowledge in). If they have a template already made that they want you to convert to HTML and that template is in a PSD file and you don't have PhotoShop, then there's a lost client. But concerning style and "personality," things become slightly complicated when the client describes things a bit general or ambiguous. Like, for example, the terms you picked: "formal," "modern." What does the client have in mind with these terms? You may find yourself making a lot of modifications to one template, perhaps even starting over entirely, just to get that "modern" look and feel to it. So be sure you fully understand what they mean. Simply looking up websites which you find to be "modern" may not cut it.

I have a couple of questions for you concerning some of the things you said. If you do not know what your purpose is, how can you ask yourself what your purpose is? So, you're not necessarily looking for an objective purpose then? So you already know your purpose? But what if you're good at doing that? Sure. I search for an absolute, conscious authority, for only an absolute, conscious authority can tell me my absolute and objective purpose. The reason why i mention that it must by necessity bear a conscious is because it would not be able to tell me my purpose if it did not have a conscious. To me, without God there is no such thing as purpose. Without God, science works in vain, for science tries to look for a cause, an explanation on why something is. But if without God life has no cause, then it follows that to study the universe is in itself pointless, therefore making science pointless. This, of course, would mean that if life has a cause, then there is a God. A universe that is eternal has no cause, but science, i hear, argues that our universe isn't eternal.

I would hate knowing when i were to die, even more so if it was a slow and painful process. Even if it was smooth and in my sleep, i would not want to know, 'cause then i'd be troubled by such a fact, unless i somehow forget. But it may not be easy forgetting such a thing. But i don't see the sense in causing trouble just because you'd die early. For wouldn't you then be placing yourself in a philosophical dilemma? That is, the reason why you died early is because you thought you were going to die early, therefore you did foolish things? Even if we assume that you were told you were going to die at war and therefore chose to avoid war, yet avoiding war didn't prevent you from dying early. Wouldn't that just mean that you weren't really supposed to die at war but just some time after being told that? Perhaps "war" was metaphorical, where you were at "war" with the police all because you thought you were going to die young and therefore took it upon yourself to do foolish things. For this reason, i don't see it wise to do foolish things just because you somehow managed to convince yourself that you'd be on some level justified in doing such. The end of your life can be predicted by the one who has your life in their hands.

I agree that this swine flu thing is overrated—though i haven't really watched the news (but that may imply how overrated it is). So it can be spread from pig to human..? That's nice to know..... So how do we know it's not just one of those common flus? Here's an interesting video on the matter: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ Oh, so taking the vaccine is pointless then? Then i guess you can forget about the video i linked to. It's interesting to note, though, that avoiding eating ham is not within the recommend steps—what one would assume to be the obvious course of action. Nevertheless, isn't there research that shows if you clean yourself too much, you can actually worsen your immune system?

The options you put forth i see as a waste of time. Why not just go around saying that you have researched things and have confirmed with authorities that they are both one and the same, while at the same time use either or since you already know they're the same, to your fellow class mates (or whoever they are)? Request that even the students themselves verify your statements. I see no moral dilemma in the entire thing you have prescribed, not even from a Darwinian point of view. If you are really looking for people to come out of the shower smelling as nice as you implied you would be, then i would have expected you to disclose the "secret" of the hidden soap-shampoo and enlighten everyone. I see this more as a personal dilemma on your side. However, if you have already done that and are still (somewhat) disturbed by any smell of drying sweat, then i suppose you can bring a mask while observing from your Darwinian point of view the barbaric ways of man kind. I've been in a gym before: people go insane with deodorant. Maybe where you are it's different, but i was less worried about foul odor and more worried about being assaulted by the unwanted crossfires of deodorant.

On Windows you don't have to do any chmodding, you just have to make sure the file isn't "read only." But on Linux and other Unix-like machines (what you are on), you have to chmod to 0777 because the web server is ran as a user other than yours. Since the file iplog.php is being ran under the admin directory and since $ipLog points to a relative location, the file needs to be located at: /home/skyed211/public_html/forums/admin/log/ip_log.htmlIf it is not located there, then you'll have to move it there or supply an absolute path to $ipLog. I recommend the latter, just so you can use this function in any script without worry. You can look at the global variable (array) _SERVER to figure out how to make a dynamic absolute path.

As a little tip, if you're looking to include this PHP file in other files that aren't located in the same directory, you should consider absolute paths instead of relative paths like you have here: $ipLog="logs/ip_log.html";Also, you should be able to reduce this line: if (preg_match("/\bhtm\b/i", $ipLog) || preg_match("/\bhtml\b/i", $ipLog)) {to if (preg_match("/\bhtml?\b/i", $ipLog)) {Though i would recommend the following instead: if (preg_match("/\.html?$/i", $ipLog)) {

Although Mr. Anonymous may never read this post of mine, i feel a (slight) correction is due here regardless. Disregarding the assumed definition of what the term "founded" means, we'll head straight into the Declaration of Independence, as it seems to be the most perfect place to start. But first we'll start by introducing the main, dominant writer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was the one who wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assure them that the Establishment Clause was beneficial to them. Separation of Church and State means that the State is not allowed to speak or act against the beliefs of the Church. It does not in any way mean that there cannot be any mention of God or religious principles, et cetera, within State documents—that is, so long as it is not part of a law that restricts things to those religious beliefs. But let us now enter the Declaration of Independence to see whether or not it implies a nation under God. To touch slightly on what perhaps is meant by "Laws of Nature," looking back on the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, insight is provided on what could be meant by "Laws of Nature," as in it is mentions "natural rights." But, moving on to the mention of a God, "Nature" here is implied to be created since an Owner is declared. However, this part alone cannot show whether or not this God is personal, but it does provide a little information that the nations (yeah, plural—powers of the earth) are under God due to the rights given to them by Nature's God. But in the next part this becomes more clear. Interestingly enough, this part starts off by making a statement that says that it is obvious that there is a Creator and that this Creator created humans equally with unalienable rights. Since this Creator endowed these absolute rights onto man, that means this Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is a personal God. It also means that this nation is under God, for this God obviously has more authority than the nation itself, as the nation received its authority from the Creator, to which we are to use as judgment for how to govern, as mentioned here:

Credit System v3 does have an implementation in effect that tries to determine the quality or validity of your post, but i'm not sure how it works, so i can't say if that would be the reason why you get the feeling that it is becoming harder to earn myCENTs. But there are probably other factors that aren't being considered. But to mention a little Credit System history, back in the days of Credit System v2, the more posts one had the more was required from them in their posts. So some of the same logic from Credit System v2 could be included in v3.

Yes. You are more likely to be better off using what you are already using, as Unix is bound to not support as much hardware as Linux currently does. And chances are you'd have to start manually maintaining the system.

I believe he was referring to compilers. On any note, his question is almost impossible to answer. The only way i can see it being answered is if you track down the first computer ever built and who build it. In which case the topic starter may find out that the first program ever created was probably something that was made to work with punch cards, where a computer was the size of a refrigerator or bigger.

Technically, there is no best. You can get one that is better than the other at that time, but as technology grows, your laptop will soon be obsolete. There are good choices, however, that one can make when choosing a laptop, but these choices mostly depend on what the person needs at the time. For example, if you are planning on doing a lot of traveling, then you may want to consider a laptop that has at least SATA for its HDD and a processor that doesn't require a lot of watts. This way you can expect the battery to last longer. But if your laptop will be plugged in most of the time, then the aforementioned won't really matter.

Very nice layout, but there are two things about it that doesn't catch my attention in an "acceptable" way: (1) the navigation bar at the top is pretty tall—too tall; should be shrunken down a bit. (2) The banner seems a bit complicated: i get the feeling that it is trying to cram things in a bit. The background where the "Did You Know?" text is should be faded out more to make the text more readable. While i can understand the reasoning behind the text "College Life" being raised up by the books, i think a better logo idea would be having a graduation hat (whatever those things are called) hang off of the "C" instead. That way you can place it more near the corner.The website has potential to grow, but like with anything, if there is no motivation and effort, it won't last. Anyway, nice to see you again, wild20.

Oh, come on, you have to be fair. It's not safe to assume Vista, for the topic starter didn't specify, therefore leaving open any version of Windows, also since it is safer to assume that Windows is already installed; nor is it safe to assume that the user already has Linux installed—due to Linux's low market share for desktops. But the topic isn't about installing the operating system, the topic already assumes that both operating systems are already installed for use. What should be noted, though, is that Windows users are most likely to be convicted of piracy.

I'm not sure for Novell Netware, but for Linux, as an alternative to top for the command-line, there is ps. Use ps -A to list all processes without entering a TUI. If you want a visual system monitor, there's KSysGuard, LXTask, and others. Each (popular) desktop environment comes with its own system monitor.